'Brexit has challenged the comfort and authority of the Establishment'

Austin Mitchell was Labour MP for Great Grimsby between 1977 and 2015.

"I’ve always thought of the Establishment as a vague but useful description for the clusters at the top of the tree in politics and society: those who have the power to shape our ordinary lives rough hew them how we may; paternalist chaps and chappesses rather like the eighteenth century aristocracy, but a bit more meritocratic these days – the essence of Britishness.

Brexit has shown how wrong I was. It would challenge their comfort and authority, so the Establishment decided to try and stop the ignorant peasantry pulling us out. The Supreme Court abandoned impartiality and went into politics, Parliament used every dodge to stop Brexit, the Speaker fiddled the rules, the Royal Corps of Pundits condemned it, and the Treasury and the Bank of England exuded exaggerated fears. The whole gang sang the praises of the EU as a great venture in peace and internationalism rather than the failing protectionist bloc it really is.

They ignored the economic consequences of Europe for the rest of us. The Treasury and the Bank used ‘rubbish in, rubbish out’ models to create fear, blaming the disastrous consequences of austerity on Brexit. They ignored the disastrous consequences for the plebs of staying in.

So one-sided. The costs of membership are known, their fears totally hypothetical but they knew that any realistic assessment would have revealed that the EU is a racket run at Britain’s expense, a system bonding national elites together to ignore the people.

The EU was created to boost France and Germany by creating a protected market for their agriculture and industries. That doesn’t suit us because it cuts us off from cheaper food and cheaper manufactures, checks attempts to rebuild British production and turns us into Europe’s consumer of last resort to keep their economies growing.

That’s why they won’t talk about the scale of the drain. Its basic part is the £11 billion annual contribution which has risen inexorably despite Cameron’s promise to freeze it and has way to go. They scoffed at the £350 million a week claim on the Leave bus, but it should be higher. We pay more across across the exchanges and though they do graciously give us some of our money back, they take a big cut to cover their inflated costs and build marble palaces in Brussels.

It’s also the smallest part of the damage. Leaving out the cost of lost fish and processing from the Common Fisheries Policy, the Common Agricultural Policy costs some £15 per family per week, because we are compelled to buy dearer European food rather than the cheaper edibles available on world markets, particularly from developing countries which need the money.

Then there’s the trade deficit, now risen to £100 billion a year in visible trade, where we had a surplus with the EU before we went in. There is a surplus in invisibles but deficits in the visibles are lost jobs and profits and a loss of demand to keep the economy growing. That loss is greater than the figures because so many companies seize the opportunity of EU regulations to report their profits in Luxembourg or Dublin and evade British taxes.

Britain can no longer pay its way. Because it imports more than it produces it must borrow or sell assets to keep buying. This is a country for sale which means loss of control, loss of profits, loss of jobs and companies turning Britain into an exploited dependency, its companies managed for the interests of others.

We’re well on the way down the path. Continued membership of the EU will take us further. That’s the future the EU offers Britain. It hits the workers by immigration, job insecurity, static earnings and less investment. But it doesn’t disturb the comfort of the Establishment presiding over it. They’re still free to buy houses, farms, property and yachts overseas."

Countdown to the end of Democracy in the UK on 00:37 - Oct 25 by Kerouac

'Brexit has challenged the comfort and authority of the Establishment'

Austin Mitchell was Labour MP for Great Grimsby between 1977 and 2015.

"I’ve always thought of the Establishment as a vague but useful description for the clusters at the top of the tree in politics and society: those who have the power to shape our ordinary lives rough hew them how we may; paternalist chaps and chappesses rather like the eighteenth century aristocracy, but a bit more meritocratic these days – the essence of Britishness.

Brexit has shown how wrong I was. It would challenge their comfort and authority, so the Establishment decided to try and stop the ignorant peasantry pulling us out. The Supreme Court abandoned impartiality and went into politics, Parliament used every dodge to stop Brexit, the Speaker fiddled the rules, the Royal Corps of Pundits condemned it, and the Treasury and the Bank of England exuded exaggerated fears. The whole gang sang the praises of the EU as a great venture in peace and internationalism rather than the failing protectionist bloc it really is.

They ignored the economic consequences of Europe for the rest of us. The Treasury and the Bank used ‘rubbish in, rubbish out’ models to create fear, blaming the disastrous consequences of austerity on Brexit. They ignored the disastrous consequences for the plebs of staying in.

So one-sided. The costs of membership are known, their fears totally hypothetical but they knew that any realistic assessment would have revealed that the EU is a racket run at Britain’s expense, a system bonding national elites together to ignore the people.

The EU was created to boost France and Germany by creating a protected market for their agriculture and industries. That doesn’t suit us because it cuts us off from cheaper food and cheaper manufactures, checks attempts to rebuild British production and turns us into Europe’s consumer of last resort to keep their economies growing.

That’s why they won’t talk about the scale of the drain. Its basic part is the £11 billion annual contribution which has risen inexorably despite Cameron’s promise to freeze it and has way to go. They scoffed at the £350 million a week claim on the Leave bus, but it should be higher. We pay more across across the exchanges and though they do graciously give us some of our money back, they take a big cut to cover their inflated costs and build marble palaces in Brussels.

It’s also the smallest part of the damage. Leaving out the cost of lost fish and processing from the Common Fisheries Policy, the Common Agricultural Policy costs some £15 per family per week, because we are compelled to buy dearer European food rather than the cheaper edibles available on world markets, particularly from developing countries which need the money.

Then there’s the trade deficit, now risen to £100 billion a year in visible trade, where we had a surplus with the EU before we went in. There is a surplus in invisibles but deficits in the visibles are lost jobs and profits and a loss of demand to keep the economy growing. That loss is greater than the figures because so many companies seize the opportunity of EU regulations to report their profits in Luxembourg or Dublin and evade British taxes.

Britain can no longer pay its way. Because it imports more than it produces it must borrow or sell assets to keep buying. This is a country for sale which means loss of control, loss of profits, loss of jobs and companies turning Britain into an exploited dependency, its companies managed for the interests of others.

We’re well on the way down the path. Continued membership of the EU will take us further. That’s the future the EU offers Britain. It hits the workers by immigration, job insecurity, static earnings and less investment. But it doesn’t disturb the comfort of the Establishment presiding over it. They’re still free to buy houses, farms, property and yachts overseas."

“Yet coming out offers no solution either. It generates uncertainty and deters investment. Most of world trade is controlled by multinationals, and Britain would be more vulnerable to their ministrations. Tory Brexiteers aim at turning us, down and dirty, into a low-wage, deregulated, cost-cutting tax haven-on-Thames. Hardly acceptable to an electorate that has already endured decades of that.”

'Labour will never recover from its treachery of ignoring millions of Leave-backing former supporters'

Tom Bewick is a former Labour councillor in Brighton and Hove, where he was Chair of the local Vote Leave campaign in 2016. He left the party in May 2019 and in August 2019 was announced as the Brexit Party’s prospective parliamentary candidate for Hastings and Rye.

"As the socialist tribes descend on Brighton once again, Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party finds itself in the grip of a full blown civil war. The Momentum faction wants to depose deputy leader Tom Watson, and his Blairite kind, in good old Marxist-Leninist style: if you can’t take out your opponent democratically, then just abolish their post.

Meanwhile, Jeremy Corbyn himself – according to comparable polling data – has just secured the ignominious title of being the most unpopular opposition leader since 1977. And all this, just weeks before an inevitable general election. In times gone by, a serious opposition party would be miles ahead in the opinion polls. Party discipline would be watertight, even if for the selfish reason that the electorate has rarely put into power such a divided team.

There will be many, now middle-aged, Labour voters, who remember 1977 rather fondly; and in particular the Queen’s Silver Jubilee of that year. For it was not only the Sex Pistols making scurrilous headlines performing God Save the Queen. The year of the Jubilee also saw giant street parties in everyday working communities up and down the land. In this era, even Labour was an unequivocally patriotic party: working-class bonds like faith, family and flag were not to be ridiculed and certainly never sneered at.

What, then, must all these grown-up voters think of Emily Thornberry? As a shadow minister, she was sacked by Ed Miliband when he was Labour leader, for condescendingly poking fun at a blue-collar worker’s house proudly displaying the flag of St. George. Fast forward to the eve of this year’s Labour Party conference and Thornberry was seen at a People’s Vote rally all dressed up and bejewelled in the federalist stars of the EU. And without, it would seem, any apparent sense of self-awareness or irony, Thornberry led a chant of ‘this is what democracy looks like’!

It was as if, in the Westminster bubble that had temporarily relocated to the seaside, the second referendum Remain leadership inside the Labour Party had completely taken all leave of its senses. From afar, the self-proclaimed people’s republic of Brighton and Hove looks like the Corbyn cult embarking upon a final death wish. Because by so actively trashing the dignity and the decision of 5 million Labour supporters who voted to leave the EU in 2016, you can’t help but conclude that the real plan of old Blairites like Watson and Thornberry is to sink Corbyn and Momentum so far below the water line, that Labour goes down to one of its biggest electoral defeats.

Corbyn himself appears oblivious to the total incredulity of his latest ridiculous Brexit position. As a member of Parliament of 36 years standing, he has more Eurosceptic DNA inside him than Jacob Rees-Mogg and Peter Bone put together. On every occasion, before becoming Labour leader, Corbyn voted against European treaties that have increasingly robbed Britain of its sovereignty in the pursuit of ever closer political union.

Now Corbyn can’t even say if he would be pro-Leave or pro-Remain in a second referendum facilitated by a future Labour government – of which he is hoping to be the Prime Minister. Like a medieval bishop overseeing some baronial dispute, Corbyn is hedging his bets, piously sitting on the fence, hoping somehow that his approach will eventually cut through to a divided nation eternally grateful for the wisdom of St. Jeremy.

As Foreign Secretary in a future Labour government, Emily Thornberry would be despatched to Brussels “to get the best possible Brexit deal”. Quite why the EU would agree any favourable terms with such a political temptress, who has already telegraphed in advance that she would campaign against her own negotiating position, beggars belief. Indeed, it would be like Len McCluskey of Unite saying he would happily go and negotiate a new pay deal for his members, only to campaign against his own union’s recommendation when put back to the ballot: McCluskey would be laughed out of town.

Karl Marx famously said that history often repeats itself, “the first as tragedy, and then as farce.” The Labour Party under Jeremy Corbyn took the tragic decision in the summer of 2017, after the last general election, to immediately start undermining the result of the EU referendum. Instead of sticking to the party’s own manifesto commitments, of getting Britain out of all the institutions of the EU, Labour has deliberately tried to thwart the largest democratic mandate in British history. Led by Sir Keir Starmer, the party’s ‘constructive ambiguity’ architect, Labour has moved its position from one of breath-taking incredulity to a full-blown farce.

Millions of traditional Labour voters are now observing, in total horror, the party of Keir Hardie, Nye Bevan, Clement Attlee and Barbara Castle tearing itself apart. Corbyn had his chance to stay true to his own convictions regarding the undemocratic nature of the EU. He could have chosen to lead; instead he has turned out to be no more than a puppet of a hard-left Remain sect.

The Labour Party – following the convulsive events of June 2016 – had a golden opportunity to reconnect with everyday working people in the Midlands, the North and South Wales. Instead, the destiny the current middle-class membership has actively chosen is one of representing only graduates, public sector workers and the liberal metropolitan elite. Any psephology student will tell you that there is no path back to power for the party, by actively going against the democratic wishes of two-thirds of Labour Leave supporting seats in the House of Commons.

What we are now witnessing is probably the death throes of the old party of the working class. At the last general election, the Conservatives managed to attract more support from C2, D and E voters than Labour. At the forthcoming general election, particularly if the Tories respond positively to Nigel Farage’s non-aggression pact, the Brexit Party are set to take Corbyn’s Labour Party to the cleaners. Like Monty Python’s dead parrot sketch, Labour is finished. It has ceased to exist."

Countdown to the end of Democracy in the UK on 09:18 - Oct 25 by Kerouac

'Labour will never recover from its treachery of ignoring millions of Leave-backing former supporters'

Tom Bewick is a former Labour councillor in Brighton and Hove, where he was Chair of the local Vote Leave campaign in 2016. He left the party in May 2019 and in August 2019 was announced as the Brexit Party’s prospective parliamentary candidate for Hastings and Rye.

"As the socialist tribes descend on Brighton once again, Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party finds itself in the grip of a full blown civil war. The Momentum faction wants to depose deputy leader Tom Watson, and his Blairite kind, in good old Marxist-Leninist style: if you can’t take out your opponent democratically, then just abolish their post.

Meanwhile, Jeremy Corbyn himself – according to comparable polling data – has just secured the ignominious title of being the most unpopular opposition leader since 1977. And all this, just weeks before an inevitable general election. In times gone by, a serious opposition party would be miles ahead in the opinion polls. Party discipline would be watertight, even if for the selfish reason that the electorate has rarely put into power such a divided team.

There will be many, now middle-aged, Labour voters, who remember 1977 rather fondly; and in particular the Queen’s Silver Jubilee of that year. For it was not only the Sex Pistols making scurrilous headlines performing God Save the Queen. The year of the Jubilee also saw giant street parties in everyday working communities up and down the land. In this era, even Labour was an unequivocally patriotic party: working-class bonds like faith, family and flag were not to be ridiculed and certainly never sneered at.

What, then, must all these grown-up voters think of Emily Thornberry? As a shadow minister, she was sacked by Ed Miliband when he was Labour leader, for condescendingly poking fun at a blue-collar worker’s house proudly displaying the flag of St. George. Fast forward to the eve of this year’s Labour Party conference and Thornberry was seen at a People’s Vote rally all dressed up and bejewelled in the federalist stars of the EU. And without, it would seem, any apparent sense of self-awareness or irony, Thornberry led a chant of ‘this is what democracy looks like’!

It was as if, in the Westminster bubble that had temporarily relocated to the seaside, the second referendum Remain leadership inside the Labour Party had completely taken all leave of its senses. From afar, the self-proclaimed people’s republic of Brighton and Hove looks like the Corbyn cult embarking upon a final death wish. Because by so actively trashing the dignity and the decision of 5 million Labour supporters who voted to leave the EU in 2016, you can’t help but conclude that the real plan of old Blairites like Watson and Thornberry is to sink Corbyn and Momentum so far below the water line, that Labour goes down to one of its biggest electoral defeats.

Corbyn himself appears oblivious to the total incredulity of his latest ridiculous Brexit position. As a member of Parliament of 36 years standing, he has more Eurosceptic DNA inside him than Jacob Rees-Mogg and Peter Bone put together. On every occasion, before becoming Labour leader, Corbyn voted against European treaties that have increasingly robbed Britain of its sovereignty in the pursuit of ever closer political union.

Now Corbyn can’t even say if he would be pro-Leave or pro-Remain in a second referendum facilitated by a future Labour government – of which he is hoping to be the Prime Minister. Like a medieval bishop overseeing some baronial dispute, Corbyn is hedging his bets, piously sitting on the fence, hoping somehow that his approach will eventually cut through to a divided nation eternally grateful for the wisdom of St. Jeremy.

As Foreign Secretary in a future Labour government, Emily Thornberry would be despatched to Brussels “to get the best possible Brexit deal”. Quite why the EU would agree any favourable terms with such a political temptress, who has already telegraphed in advance that she would campaign against her own negotiating position, beggars belief. Indeed, it would be like Len McCluskey of Unite saying he would happily go and negotiate a new pay deal for his members, only to campaign against his own union’s recommendation when put back to the ballot: McCluskey would be laughed out of town.

Karl Marx famously said that history often repeats itself, “the first as tragedy, and then as farce.” The Labour Party under Jeremy Corbyn took the tragic decision in the summer of 2017, after the last general election, to immediately start undermining the result of the EU referendum. Instead of sticking to the party’s own manifesto commitments, of getting Britain out of all the institutions of the EU, Labour has deliberately tried to thwart the largest democratic mandate in British history. Led by Sir Keir Starmer, the party’s ‘constructive ambiguity’ architect, Labour has moved its position from one of breath-taking incredulity to a full-blown farce.

Millions of traditional Labour voters are now observing, in total horror, the party of Keir Hardie, Nye Bevan, Clement Attlee and Barbara Castle tearing itself apart. Corbyn had his chance to stay true to his own convictions regarding the undemocratic nature of the EU. He could have chosen to lead; instead he has turned out to be no more than a puppet of a hard-left Remain sect.

The Labour Party – following the convulsive events of June 2016 – had a golden opportunity to reconnect with everyday working people in the Midlands, the North and South Wales. Instead, the destiny the current middle-class membership has actively chosen is one of representing only graduates, public sector workers and the liberal metropolitan elite. Any psephology student will tell you that there is no path back to power for the party, by actively going against the democratic wishes of two-thirds of Labour Leave supporting seats in the House of Commons.

What we are now witnessing is probably the death throes of the old party of the working class. At the last general election, the Conservatives managed to attract more support from C2, D and E voters than Labour. At the forthcoming general election, particularly if the Tories respond positively to Nigel Farage’s non-aggression pact, the Brexit Party are set to take Corbyn’s Labour Party to the cleaners. Like Monty Python’s dead parrot sketch, Labour is finished. It has ceased to exist."

Nothing like a good street party. Lots of bunting and little Union Jacks with loads of cup cakes and gallons of tea. It’ll be lovely to get them going again after we’ve left that horrible EU.

'For those seeking constitutional impropriety, look at what Speaker Bercow has allowed MPs to do'

Bryan Gould was Labour MP for Southampton Test between 1974 and 1979 and then represented Dagenham between 1983 and 1994. He held a variety of shadow cabinet posts under Neil Kinnock and was defeated in the 1992 contest to succeed him as Labour leader by John Smith, in whose shadow cabinet he briefly served before resigning in opposition to the party’s European policy. He had served in the British Diplomatic Service before embarking on his political career and on leaving Parliament in 1994 he returned to his native New Zealand, where he served for ten years as Vice-Chancellor of the University of Waikato. He blogs at bryangould.com.

"The Brexit issue has certainly brought with it a series of apparently difficult constitutional issues, many of them concerning the respective roles of the executive and Parliament. Most of them arise because of the unwillingness of MPs, despite their professions to the contrary, to be bound by a constitutional rarity – a referendum – and as a consequence their determination to use Parliament to stand in the way of the executive’s commitment to give effect to the outcome of that referendum.

No one can be surprised, therefore, that the issue is increasingly seen by the general public as a battle between the popular will, as manifested in the referendum result, and their elected representatives in Parliament. That perception has been greatly helped by the Speaker, who seems determined to go out in a blaze of glory, and by his efforts to portray himself as the defender of Parliament’s rights and therefore of democracy.

The prorogation of Parliament has of course been the issue that has attracted most attention and is most easily characterised as an assault on constitutional convention, despite the fact that Parliament is, as a matter of course, always prorogued at this time of year. But of equal, if not greater, novelty and significance is another – and related – development.

If there has been one step above all others that has “stymied” the Government, it has been the passage of legislation that “instructs” the Prime Minister to seek an extension of the Brexit departure date from the EU. If there is any measure in the Brexit saga that breaks new constitutional ground, it is this Act of Parliament.

Parliament is of course able to pass any legislation it likes, but to use legislation to instruct a particular member of the executive to take a particular step is to see the legislature straying well and truly beyond its usual remit and into the realm of the executive. An Act of Parliament is a measure that almost always has a general application to at least a group, if not all, of the population as a whole, and its effect is usually to change the law for those affected.

To assume the role of an executive body and to prescribe a particular executive act is at the very least a departure from the norm. It represents the interjection of Parliament into the usual relationship between the executive and the electorate – one in which the elected government seeks to act on its undertakings to those who voted it into office.

Speaker Bercow may use his best and long-practised persona as the defender of democracy to try to persuade people that Parliament has behaved properly in this matter, but there is no concealing the relative novelty and far-reaching extent of what it has tried to do in this instance.

If we are to have a workable system of parliamentary government, it is of course essential that Parliament should be able hold the executive to account at every turn – but that is very different from claiming the right and power to dictate to the executive that it must take a particular step – and nor should the fact that the step required is of great significance be taken as providing a shred of justification for this power grab by Parliament.

For those who are quick to condemn the executive’s attempts to deliver on its promises and to complain about constitutional impropriety when it does so, a period of reflection on these issues may be in order."

'We are where we are because Remainers have collaborated with the EU to prevent an acceptable deal'

Bryan Gould was Labour MP for Southampton Test between 1974 and 1979 and then represented Dagenham between 1983 and 1994. He held a variety of shadow cabinet posts under Neil Kinnock and was defeated in the 1992 contest to succeed him as Labour leader by John Smith, in whose shadow cabinet he briefly served before resigning in opposition to the party’s European policy. He had served in the British Diplomatic Service before embarking on his political career and on leaving Parliament in 1994 he returned to his native New Zealand, where he served for ten years as Vice-Chancellor of the University of Waikato. He blogs at bryangould.com.

"What an extraordinarily depressing experience it is to be compelled to watch, at 12,000 miles distance, the contortions and machinations of the British political class as they set about their determined attempt to overturn the decision taken by the British people that they wish to leave the European Union.

The pages of publications like The Guardian are replete with articles by “constitutional experts”, exploring the various arcane ways in which so-called “democrats” could manipulate constitutional and parliamentary rules and practice so as to frustrate the will of the people by preventing a “no deal” Brexit — and all this supposedly in the name of democracy!

Let us be quite clear. The rearguard campaign to prevent a “no-deal” Brexit is merely a smokescreen for the real objective, which is to frustrate any Brexit at all and, in effect, overturn the referendum outcome. Despite protestations that they are committed to giving effect to the referendum, the Remainers’ actions tell a different story.

They calculate that, if the EU can be persuaded not to budge on negotiations for a deal, there will be sufficient opposition to a “no-deal” Brexit to mean that Parliament will find a way to stop it.

The contempt they show for democracy is exceeded only by their arrogance – their conviction that they alone know best – and by their readiness to demonstrate that their true allegiance is not to British democracy and self-government but to the “ideal” of European union – and, in the interests of that ideal, that they are prepared to collaborate with the EU to ensure that no acceptable deal for Brexit is available.

Let us again be clear. A “no-deal” Brexit arises as a possibility only because the EU, in pursuance of their unspoken arrangement with Remainers, refuses to talk to, let alone negotiate with, a British government committed to withdrawal – a dramatic illustration of the extent to which, when we cannot even secure a position as a valid interlocutor on the issue of our own decision to withdraw, EU membership continues to mean a status of vassalage for the UK.

The EU are encouraged in this unreasonable intransigence by the continued efforts from Remainers to convince them that the battle to overturn the referendum result is not over and could yet be won if a deal is placed beyond reach. Defeated in the referendum and professing to abide by its outcome, they nevertheless demonstrate continually – and particularly to the EU – their determination at whatever cost to make it as difficult as possible.

What are the British people to make of this demonstration of contempt for them by their supposed leaders? For many, the sense that they are not being listened to – which, many believe, lay behind the referendum result – will simply have been confirmed.

Their confidence in democratic institutions and in their leaders will be further undermined. Their sense of being mere pawns, manipulated under a cloak of democracy in the interests of the political class, will have been validated.

What else are they to think, when so much effort is devoted by politicians to frustrating their wishes, and when what should be a reasonably straightforward proposition, that our EU membership should end, seems to be beyond our institutions to deliver and is not something that the EU is even prepared to discuss with those primarily involved?

Whatever we may think of a Boris Johnson Government, there must be some sympathy with its position that terminating our EU membership, in its essence, must surely be something that is within the remit and power of the UK government – deal or no deal.

Whether or not there is a “deal” is as much the responsibility of the EU as it is of the UK. In the absence of any EU willingness to negotiate a deal, it cannot be the case that the UK is locked in – prisoners who cannot escape. A “no-deal” Brexit, when and if it happens, will have been engineered, not by Leavers, but by the absence of any alternative, brought about as a consequence of the Remainers’ collaboration with the EU to prevent an acceptable deal being agreed."

'The hypocritical Lib Dems want to ignore the result of the Brexit referendum they demanded a decade ago'

Robert Courts has been the Conservative MP for Witney and West Oxfordshire since 2016 and is chairman of the All Party Parliamentary Group for Small- and Micro-Businesses.

"The Liberal Democrats have devoted a great deal of time at their party conference to attacking my predecessor as Witney MP, David Cameron, over his decision to call the EU referendum. These attacks are an attempt to sanitise their own role in campaigning for – and to airbrush their contribution to securing – that very referendum.

Let’s get some of the basics clear first. The Conservative manifesto promise to hold an in/out referendum was endorsed by the British people in 2015, being crucial to the party’s majority at that year’s general election. The very fact that the British public voted to Leave a year later demonstrates how wide and deep was discontent in Britain at the country’s EU membership, at least without fundamental reform. Ever since the advent of the euro, and the further integration required to sustain it, Britain and the EU were on different paths requiring at the very least a fundamentally reformed relationship. Cameron is correct that a referendum was, at some point, probably inevitable in any event.

We should not forget: the referendum was not called by Cameron alone. Even as Prime Minister, he did not have the authority to simply call the referendum. That required an Act of Parliament, which passed by an overwhelming majority with 544 MPs in favour and just 53 against at Second Reading. As it happened, seven of the Lib Dems’ then eight MPs voted for the EU Referendum Bill in 2015.

But the Lib Dems’ hypocrisy does not end there. For all the vitriol they pour on Cameron for holding the referendum, the Lib Dems neglect to mention that they were calling for an in/out referendum on the EU many years before the Conservative Party. Indeed, we have all seen the infamous 2008 Lib Dem campaign leaflet circulating on Twitter – very familiar to those of us who were Conservative activists at the time – featuring a fresh-faced Nick Clegg demanding “a real referendum on Britain’s membership of the European Union.” The leaflet observed that:

“It’s been over thirty years since the British people last had a vote on Britain’s membership of the European Union. That’s why the Liberal Democrats want a real referendum on Europe. Only a real referendum on Britain’s membership of the EU will let the people decide our country’s future.”

2008 was also the year that Clegg infamously stormed out of the House of Commons when the then speaker, Michael Martin, refused to call a Lib Dem amendment in his name demanding an in/out EU referendum.

Following Ed Davey’s expulsion from the chamber, Clegg said:

“I share the dismay of [Ed Davey]. What guidance can [the Deputy Speaker] give me on how we can secure – if not today, at some point during the remaining stages of the Bill – the opportunity to debate the issue that many members want debated and many members of the public want debated: our future membership of the EU?”

Davey (then the Lib Dems’ foreign affairs spokesman) had struck an even more forceful tone, remarking:

“Will the Chair reconsider the decision not to select the Liberal Democrat amendment for a referendum on Britain’s membership of the EU? That is the question that goes to the heart of the debate before the House. That is the debate that people want to hear. We are being gagged, Sir.”

The current Lib Dem Leader, Jo Swinson, also contributed to this debate, and her speech is fascinating when compared with the comments she made at the weekend. Swinson repeated that:

“The Liberal Democrats would like to have a referendum on the major issue of whether we are in or out of Europe.”

On an in/out EU referendum, she noted:

“We support such a referendum; we will continue to campaign for it and hope that it will find favour in this House.”

Furthermore, she described being denied a vote on Clegg’s referendum amendment as “incredibly disappointing” and something she felt “very passionately” about.

Swinson’s eurosceptic side – mysteriously neglected of late – was also on display, as she noted:

“For too long, power in the EU has been concentrated among those who are appointed, not elected. The structures of the EU have often proved cumbersome to say the least, at times even making this House look modern and streamlined by comparison.”

The Lib Dems remained proponents of an in/out referendum at the 2010 General Election which saw them enter into a Coalition Government with the Conservatives, with a carefully caveated manifesto promise to hold a referendum “the next time a British government signs up for fundamental change in the relationship between the UK and the EU”.

The fact that the Lib Dems long advocated giving the British people a say on our membership of the EU, and indeed were the first mainstream party to call for an in/out referendum on the matter, makes their new pledge to cancel Brexit without even a second referendum all the more extraordinary. And that, itself, being an evolution from a position that a second referendum result would only be respected if it resulted in a Remain vote.

Seemingly without a hint of self-awareness, Lib Dem party policy is now to ignore the result of a referendum for which they themselves were the first to call. This wildly divisive policy shows the Lib Dems to be utterly disinterested in bringing the country together, their uncompromising approach only serving to fuel further discord and division. There is nothing inherently wrong with regretting a referendum result, but it is deluded to think that pretending it didn’t happen is going to lead to anything other than bitter polarisation.

It is therefore no surprise that Lib Dem grandee Sir Norman Lamb has warned that the party is “playing with fire”, describing the new policy as “a threat to the social contract” that risks dividing an already fractured country further.

Let’s be clear: nullifying a referendum for which the Lib Dems were the first to call, which was overwhelmingly endorsed by Parliament and which was the largest democratic exercise in our nation’s history, is not a moderate position. Neither liberal, nor democrats, this party has become the truly extremist force in British politics."

This is the Guardians economics editor. People have been banging on that leaving the EU will be a backward step for workers rights but this article says otherwise. Any comments?

PS, sorry, didn't mean to quote anybody!

[Post edited 25 Oct 2019 10:04]

Larry Elliot has always been bit of a dick and a Lexiter.

Here’s an excellent reply from the comments below the article -

“

Guardian Pick

I think you’ve rather missed the point, Larry. When it comes to workers’ rights the EU sets minimums, not targets. Its aim is to establish a continent-wide baseline for standards that member states can either meet or exceed (which is why it was so laughable to see Conservative MPs this week proudly highlight the various British rights that are stronger than EU minimums, as if this proves any point other than that they don’t know what the EU does). Is it business friendly? Of course it bloody is. It’s an economic union, not a drum circle.

Your message seems to be “Don’t fear leaving the EU. It never protected us much anyway.” In this you’re failing to understand why we’re concerned. The reason British voters are so concerned about Johnson’s withdrawal agreement is not that we fear he’ll strip away rights beneath the EU’s rather low bar. I reality there’s little danger of that, because EU minimums are already fairly easy to meet. No, we’re worried because the withdrawal agreement sets a *direction of travel*, specifically towards the US, a nation that makes the EU look like a generous trade union that offers a two day week, 50 bank holidays a year and full strike pay. The withdrawal agreement is confirmation that the Conservatives intend to reduce our rights. The fact that that EU isn’t perfect is immaterial”.

0

Countdown to the end of Democracy in the UK on 10:11 - Oct 25 with 783 views

Countdown to the end of Democracy in the UK on 10:03 - Oct 25 by WarwickHunt

Larry Elliot has always been bit of a dick and a Lexiter.

Here’s an excellent reply from the comments below the article -

“

Guardian Pick

I think you’ve rather missed the point, Larry. When it comes to workers’ rights the EU sets minimums, not targets. Its aim is to establish a continent-wide baseline for standards that member states can either meet or exceed (which is why it was so laughable to see Conservative MPs this week proudly highlight the various British rights that are stronger than EU minimums, as if this proves any point other than that they don’t know what the EU does). Is it business friendly? Of course it bloody is. It’s an economic union, not a drum circle.

Your message seems to be “Don’t fear leaving the EU. It never protected us much anyway.” In this you’re failing to understand why we’re concerned. The reason British voters are so concerned about Johnson’s withdrawal agreement is not that we fear he’ll strip away rights beneath the EU’s rather low bar. I reality there’s little danger of that, because EU minimums are already fairly easy to meet. No, we’re worried because the withdrawal agreement sets a *direction of travel*, specifically towards the US, a nation that makes the EU look like a generous trade union that offers a two day week, 50 bank holidays a year and full strike pay. The withdrawal agreement is confirmation that the Conservatives intend to reduce our rights. The fact that that EU isn’t perfect is immaterial”.

It's only excelent if you buy into it. I don't believe our rights will be reduced down to even the EU minimum, we already enjoy better protections than the EU guarantees. Does anyone seriously believe Parliament will allow the law changes to take workers rights lower?

Where in the WA does it actually "set the direction of travel" that the comment suggests?

Countdown to the end of Democracy in the UK on 10:11 - Oct 25 by Catullus

It's only excelent if you buy into it. I don't believe our rights will be reduced down to even the EU minimum, we already enjoy better protections than the EU guarantees. Does anyone seriously believe Parliament will allow the law changes to take workers rights lower?

Where in the WA does it actually "set the direction of travel" that the comment suggests?

Countdown to the end of Democracy in the UK on 10:11 - Oct 25 by Catullus

It's only excelent if you buy into it. I don't believe our rights will be reduced down to even the EU minimum, we already enjoy better protections than the EU guarantees. Does anyone seriously believe Parliament will allow the law changes to take workers rights lower?

Where in the WA does it actually "set the direction of travel" that the comment suggests?

The bit where Boris says "my tongue is firmly wedged in Trump's fundament".

0

Countdown to the end of Democracy in the UK on 11:44 - Oct 25 with 732 views

Countdown to the end of Democracy in the UK on 10:11 - Oct 25 by Catullus

It's only excelent if you buy into it. I don't believe our rights will be reduced down to even the EU minimum, we already enjoy better protections than the EU guarantees. Does anyone seriously believe Parliament will allow the law changes to take workers rights lower?

Where in the WA does it actually "set the direction of travel" that the comment suggests?

Try telling EU nationals who've grown up here and lived here for decades, who are now having their registrations bounced, that their rights aren't being impacted. The very act of Brexit is impacting rights for us Brits and EU nationals.

The EU is far from the be all and end all, for sure (contrary to what some believe, it doesn't control every aspect of us). And this isn't a simple EU bad/UK good or vice versa argument. Our laws and rights in some areas have evolved mutually and are still complexly entwined. Take the Equal Pay Act, which that Gardian piece mis-represents. The EU did have an indirect role in that legislation. We were required to enact legislation on quality to align with the Treaty of Rome in order to join the EEC. And then pretty soon after joining the scope of equal pay was broadened in the EU Equal Pay Directive.

Another point - all those Acts quoted by Elliott were introduced by Labour: - Equal Pay Act - Sex Discrimination Act - Health and Safety at Work Act - Employment Protection Act

That's not to score a point, but it highlights how party politics adds another dimension to all of this. I wouldn't trust the Tories as far as I could throw them. They wouldn't think twice about voting through legislation that would adversely impact workers (if they had a majority to of course). They're trying to do it with the various Brexit bills.

0

Countdown to the end of Democracy in the UK on 12:07 - Oct 25 with 712 views